Gender Recognition Certificates and De-transition.

I recently read that the word “Kafkaesque” is over-deployed but I make no excuse for using it for this piece.

Recently someone wrote to the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) to ask what process they could follow after realising they had made a catastrophic mistake and wished to re-identify with their actual sex. They had come to the realisation that Gender Identity Ideology was hokum. Because they had already obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) they needed to ascertain what the process was for amending their documentation to reflect their biological reality. In this piece will cover the response from the GRP and add it to my series on Gender Recognition Certificates.

My series on Gender Recognition Certificates covered an interview with a member of the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP)who talked about how “enabling” the panel is; rather an unfortunate choice of word now we know they enable male rapists to be recognised as “women”. I also covered a man who was turned down, three times, for a Gender Recognition Certificate, by the GRP , but was able to get the refusal overturned by a single judge. The thrice refused man also married three times, fathered seven children and served prison time for obtaining explosives with the intent to endanger life (. I don’t know about you but this bio absolutely screams LAYDEE! ) Another in the series covers a man who was, I believe, the first man to get a Gender Recognition Certificate from within prison. He was serving a sentence for manslaughter but was released, to a female bail hostel, only to be recalled to prison, five days later, for a brutal attempt to rape a woman. I also include Owen Jones and Ruth Hunt,laughing about women who opposed the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, calling the right to self-identify, as women, with even less gatekeeping, a mere “administrative change”.

You can read that series here:

Gender Recognition Certificates

The response came from the office of the Gender Recognition Panel.

Paula Gray is the Judge who has spoken publicly about the process who I covered in my series.

The letter sets out the limitation to the powers of the Gender Recognition Panel. The correspondent expresses no view about the legislation but any right thinking person should be kept awake at night knowing what kind of man they unleashed in women’s spaces.

The letter is a follow up to earlier correspondence where it is made clear that the enquirer can not amend their documents on the basis of a mistaken diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria”. Instead a full application must be made to the GRP which must abide by the requirements of the Gender Recognition Act. Basically a detransitioner must demonstrate they have lived in their birth sex for a further two years and obtain a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, again.

Because there is no process for “reversion” the only way forward is to claim, not that you are your biological sex but that you now have a “gender identity” at odds with the official certification the government provided. The language is, of course, all about “gender” though it is impossible to change your biological sex and it is our sex which recorded because we are not born with a “birth gender”.

The next paragraph is interesting as the panel make it clear there are no penalties for anyone who fills out a Statutory declaration saying they intend to live “in that gender until death”. Of course this is good news for detransitioners but it rather exposes the lie, which I have seen countless times, that a statutory declaration is a weighty enough document to discourage predatory men from taking advantage of the process. The GRP do not test for “proof of intention”.

The detransitioner wishes to acknowledge their biological sex because they no longer believe in “gender ideology”. This is not sufficient because the GRP is built on this ideology. Instead the person, who is likely to have been harmed by any medical interventions, has to seek help from the very people who make a living from “gender identity medicine”. These people very likely have a conflict of interest and are incentivised to discourage public records of “regret”. Moreover this disregards any legacy trauma the detransitioner my have. Instead they must collude with a ludicrous pantomime wherein they show that they are now suffering from “gender dysphoria” about their actual sex! 🤷‍♀️

A few MPs attempted to raise the issue of people who come to regret their “gender” change and the general response was to dismiss the consequences and minimise the number of such cases. David Lammy was asked about this during the passage of the bill. As of today there are 47,000 members of the detrans reddit forum and I am followed by new detransitioners almost daily. In addition my next piece on an NHS “trans” policy outlines the process for dealing with NHS numbers for detransitioners. Seems it is no longer such a rare phenomenon.

Here the pretence is that our birth certificates record our “legal gender” when in fact they record our biological sex. Only the loony extremists claim a baby is born without a sex.

You can watch Dawn Butler, Labour MP, saying babies are born without a sex, Trans Women are Women etc in this clip.

Dawn Butler

To be clear the process will make sure there is no record of why the person detransitioned. No audit trail for people to declare they have realised they were simply gay, or autistic or were a victim of child sexual abuse. Or that they realise the trauma of being in the care system and from a fractured family left them vulnerable to this ideology. All these groups are over-represented at Gender Clinics.

This process will therefore take at least two years before you get to the waiting lists which have increased significantly since the fee (formerly £140) has been reduced to £5. Hence the #FemaleForAFiver hashtag.

You can support me by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.

My Substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Featured

Introduction:

Ruth Hunt may believe that she got out of, the UK Charity, Stonewall, reputation intact, I am here to state that she did not. More public, and private, bodies are declining to renew membership, of the Charity’s many, money-making initiatives. Hunt may be congratulating herself that this did not happen on her watch. She is in for a rude awakening, this is her legacy. I intend to capture as much evidence as I can while we wait for the public accountability as the dominoes begin to topple.

Now that Hunt has been elevated to the the House of Lords I want to remind her that it took decades for Lord David Steel to be held to account; over his failure to deal with the child predator, and MP, Cyril Smith. How many more children could have been saved from abuse had he spoken up? Similarly how many of our, young, gay males and Lesbians will have been unnecessarily medicalised before Gender Identity Ideology is defeated. David Steel, eventually, resigned from his party and stood down from the House of Lords. His status did not save him. Stonewall had a proud history of standing up for Gay Rights but have now trashed their reputation. They bear a significant share of responsibiity for the harm Trans ideology has visited on young Lesbians and Gay Males. As CEO Ruth Hunt is similarly tarnished.

Ruth Hunt will indeed have a reputation, even a place in history, but it is one likely to take the proud out of PRIDE! Queer Capitalism indeed!

Primary Source:

Here is the interview. I have saved a copy. There will be mass deletions of tweets, interviews, newspaper articles. We need to archive as many of these as we can. We must NEVER forget who is reponsible for the promotion of this ideology. (Ruth Hunt has already deleted her Twitter account).

Owen Jones interviews Ruth Hunt

Here is a transcript. I have tried to reproduce it accurately but I did have to correct some parts, the intent was clear, but it didn’t translate to the written word. You can cross check the interview for yourself.

owen jones and ruth hunt

The Interview:

The interview takes place when Stonewall were campaigning for a review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The GRA allows someone to obtain a revised birth certificate to reflect a “sex change”. The legislation was designed to facilitate a legal fiction for, we were told, a tiny number of people who we commonly considered to be “transsexual”. What Trans Activists, supported by Stonewall, wished to do was to allow anyone to identify as the opposite sex on a “self-identifying” basis. This would remove any gatekeeping and, as I have shown in previous blogs the process, as it exists now, already allows fully intact, male, rapists to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

In the U.K, this proposed “reform”, triggered alarm in many women and led to the formation of Women’s Place U.K and Fairplay For Women as well as other, groups like Standing For Women. Other groups like Object and Filia had existed prior to the GRA.

The strategy Stonewall used to enable this legislative change was to avoid debate. We were told there was no need for one and we should just “skip it”. This approach was perfectly represented by this campaign material.

Stonewall and other Trans Activists also opted for a policy of #NoDebate on the spuriousgrounds that we “debated” Gay Rights and we should simply #Skipit this time. This strategy was exemplified in BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour attempts to cover the issue. Those representing the Trans Lobby would refuse the appear, on the same programme as Women’s Rights campaigners, claiming this would render them unsafe. This propagated the myth of a vulnerable community and also avoided any, direct, challenge to their arguments. Sometimes Woman’s Hour used taped segments, other times Trans activists refused to appear, at all. Many segments were simply cancelled because nobody, for the Trans Side, would agree to contribute.

Freddy McConnell (Trans-identified Female) outlined their stance, re debate, for the Guardian. Note the framing, discussing this issue is presented as a literal threat to life. It is also notworthy that females are often put up to oppose Women’s rights campaigners to avoid people concluding, correctly in my view, that Trans Lobby Groups are dominated by Men’s Rights Activists. It is a lot easier to get away with the hyperbole of “vulnerable” trans people when using a female with a small build.

Ruth Hunt remembers Stonewall Strategy slightly differently. In this interview she claims the problem is that they had over-estimated the capacity of the general public to engage in the debate in a mature enough fashion. Elitist claptrap. I would, however, agree with Ruth on one point they legal/policy proposals are indeed “naive”. I would suggest the truth of the matter is that Stonewall thought that they could adopt the strategy of passing legislative change by stealth. (See my piece on The Denton’s Document. Thankfully the days of them operating in the shadows are over. We See You, as they say, and we don’t like what we are seeing..

Owen’s response is to profess bafflement. Who are the people (can’t even bring himself to say “women) who want to discuss the conflict of rights between Women and Men? They would be WOMEN, Owen. This illustrates how out of touch Owen is with the Working Class on whose existence and lives he has built his career and income streams. Not one thought for the women in prison’s forced to share space with male rapists? Naturally he frames this as “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. He is grossly ill-informed.

Ruth also knows perfectly well she is talking about people with no desire for a “medical” transition. She even claims that women, opposed to male-bodied people in their spaces, are in danger of putting pressure on the NHS who would not be able to cope with the demand. On this point I can set Ruth’s mind at reast. Surgery does not convert a man into a woman and women still have the right to single sex spaces irrespective of surgical status.

This is how Ms Hunt frames the discussion about the Gender Recognistion Act. It is well worth watching the footage to see the jocular way she and Tiny Owen discuss this proposed amendment to the GRA. “It’s just admin”.

Owen cannot contain his glee at the opportuniity to laugh at all those silly women, kicking up a fuss about nothing.

Ruth then goes on to share her opinion on the existing, legal position. This is what is known as Stonewall Law. Repeat the law as you wish it to be not as it is. If the law already allowed all these things there would have been no need for the amendment. What she is doing here is making sure, even if the law does not change, they can continue training organisations across the land that single sex spaces are illegal.

Below is a clip from the Reindorf Report which investigated the no-platforming of Feminist academics from Essex University. Here’s what the author had to say about Stonewall.

Ruth then goes on to make a statement worthy of Goebels level propaganda. The breathtaking audacity of the following statement flabberghasted me to the point of a Benjamin “butter gasp”!

Yes! It’s not as if we don’t already have male rapists in female prisons, competing in women’s sports, taking Women’s Officer roles in the Green Party and Labour. Its not as if a male, who lied about his sex, is now running a Rape Crisis centre for women. Its not a if Mental Health Nurses are telling a female patient, undergoing a psychotic episode the person who has just exposed his penis to her is a “woman”. Its not as if a man in Monkey costume complete wearing a Dildo is going into Nurseries to read books for children!

Hurdles versus Loopholes.

This is a major social engineering process which requires females accept males in every conceivable space. I cannot resist sharing one final screenshot of this interview. This is where Ms Hunt made a (freudian?) slip and substituted the word “loophole” when, from the context, it seems she meant to say “hurdle”. Daft!

I am looking forward to looking at how Ruth squares this with her Christian Faith and why she claims she would be a good person to navigate the so called “Culture Wars”.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.

£10.00

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

The process by which a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued is overseen by a Gender Recognition Panel. Here a judge talks, with breathless excitement, about their involvement in the process. It is rare to get any insight into the workings of the panel except, as I found, by looking at Legal Cases which do shed some slight on its ~~laxity~~ sorry, complexity. This piece is very revealing in its tone, and use of language. Remember this panel determines who can redefine themselves, in law, as the opposite sex and be treated as if they were legally a man, or a woman. Though note the legislation had amendments to prevent a woman inheriting a peerage or accessing legacies entailed on the male line. They made sure the important things were protected. Exclusions were built in to legally discriminate against females who claim a male identity. Ireland did the same with the priesthood.

Article, in full, here Gender Recognition Panels

I think a lot of the people involved in the “gender identity” business feel they are claiming a place in history (the right side of history) by working in such a radical/revolutionary field.

This article is written in the language of social justice warriors not of cool, calm, deliberative thinkers. This is legislation which has massive implications for women’s rights. It directly impacts the implementation of legislation around single sex spaces and women’s right to exclude men from our political organisations. Yet NOT ONCE does this essay even touch on the potential (I would say actual) implications for women’s rights!

Will I draw fire from Social Justice Warriors if I appropriate the Chinese Curse “May you live in interesting times”. Women, in the UK, are indeed living in a cursed place.

Ms Gray is very frank about the process and the stance of the panel. I am not surprised. Much of what she says is controversial, in feminist (non libfem) circles, but has been utterly normalised by the, cognitively captured, judiciary. If only women had managed to capture the state with such alacrity we could be living in a very different world! If only women were part of this marginalised community what we could do with such power?

The use of language is highly revealing. “avant-garde” and “radical” . This is language more appropriate for someone authoring experimental fiction. Though in a sense they are doing exactly this but with real life consequences, not just a critical review in high brow literature journals. The judge seems almost disappointed that we were pipped at the post by other jurisdictions who have already moved to “self-selection of one’s gender”. The Pick and mix of Sex coming to a courtroom near you. The Judge seems disappointed she is stuck with our old-fashioned and “oppressive” desire for some “evidential requirements”, this is a Judge rejecting evidence as “oppressive”. Are we lamenting that we have we not kept pace with the social engineering that has embedded itself in western (elite) culture because we are no longer leading it?

For this judge it has been an exciting opportunity to be at the “cutting edge” ,or not, of a Brave New World. This excitement is not quite shared in the real world where ordinary women deal with the consequences. The judge wants us to know how this “small group of judges” decided how they would operate. As we can see , below, they decided the progressive thing to do was to be “enabling” and facilitative. They certainly have been “enabling” and I am not sure I would speak of what they have “enabled” in such gushing terms.

They have all we are told gained their experience via the “Social Entitlement Chamber” which is just the most fabulous name for a school of judges who seem so out of touch. Here ⇓⇓ we are told that the team work to be as accommodating as possible so that the applicants can demonstrate their “entitlement to a GRC”. Ms Gray takes this very seriously and has only refused 3 out of an estimated 2800. So less than 0.1% were refused. Even then the applicant can go on to appeal. At that stage only one judge needs make the decision. (See my earlier review of one such case: GRC Appeal)

I dare say the answer to this blinkered view is that time and time again the lobby groups advising are from one sector only. Any implications for women have been ignored and, if considered at all, clearly discounted. They have spoken to “professionals in the field” including endocrinologists and psychologists. The problem with these “experts”, who are encountered again and again in legal cases , is that they are ideologues. The “experts” are wedded to the notion that “gender identity” is a real, biological, phenomenon and only a bigot would define women as a biological sex class.

Ms Gray anticipates that her role may be at an end. No doubt seeing the requirement for any scrutiny to be disregarded in a rush to impose Self-identified status as a woman/man. I too wish for an end to the Gender Recognition Panel but for entirely different reasons. It was a mistake to enshrine a legal requirement to recognise a change of sex as if it was literally possible. The eradication of the notion of “sex” will hurt women and, ultimately, those who wish to be protected as “same sex oriented”. This is not revolutionary. Its regressive.

Gender Recognition Certificates

As activists in the trans community work to remove the “onerous” burdens placed on the community to legally “transition” I became curious about the legal cases in this area. Far from excessive gatekeeping the act is explicitly designed to be “permissive”. Has this permissiveness gone too far? It seems there is a low bar to be, legally, redefined as a woman. If you are not convinced have a scroll through my blogs. If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine, I would not believe me either! In every piece I link to the legal records. You can bypass my commentary and go straight to the Transcript

In brief no surgery, attempted rape convictions, being incarcerated for paedophilia are no bar to claiming “womanhood”! Remember that when someone tells you they “live as a woman”. Interrogate that phrase. Its ubiquitous and meaningless. Can I, a white woman, say I “live as a black woman”? Nope. So why is one form of appropriation Ok and the other is racist?

Reading through these cases the co-morbidities of mental health conditions is striking, even as they are dismissed as “co-incidental”. This has implications for treatment pathways and women’s safety. The recurrence of the same “experts” also shows how “gender identity specialists” are influencing the judiciary. The case I cover in this blog can be read, in full, here 👉: Ms Jay October 2018

Ms Jay versus the Secretary of State was instigated after three, unsuccessful, applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Presiding was a single judge, Lord Justice Baker. This case, as the Judge points out, was the first under new rules governing appeals against a GRC refusal. Below is some background about the complainant.

The clip below includes details of the short marriages, a self-reported feeling of being in the wrong gender, from puberty, and a secret history of “cross-dressing”. {Neophytes should search “autogynephelia” at this stage}

In addition to marrying three times, and fathering 7 children, the appellant has a criminal history. In 2011 they were sentenced to eight years in prison. The judge makes it clear that the appeal is not concerned with the criminal offences. Also the papers detailing the offence were not included and, moreover, that this was not relevant to the “wider public debate”. For the terminally curious. Here is a brief allusion to the offence so you can judge for yourself whether it is “relevant”

Some of the reasons the panel resisted awarding a GRC were; inconsistencies in the information supplied, the reversion to male names during “transition” and a Gender Identity specialist casting doubt on the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Ms Jay appears to have had more than one name change during the process and questions were raised about multiple addresses. Questions were also asked about misleading information supplied about the marriages and why redacted documents were submitted to the panel. Here we are told the applicant has lived full-time as a woman since December 2008. Yet driving licence and passport were renewed, in the male name, in 2013. This a year after making a statutory declaration, to a judge of their “intention to live full-time as female until death”. (whatever living as a female means). The appellant had a name change in 2013 , whilst imprisoned, a surname change and then another first name change in 2018. I hope someone is keeping track of all those names! I echo the panel statement which questioned whether the applicant had something to hide!

I sympathise with a panel presented with this applicant. A person whose Gender Dysphoria remitted enough to marry three times and father seven children. Someone who manages to suppress their femininity sufficiently to amass explosives with intent to endanger life. ( No! I hear your outrage. You are right. Women can also amass explosives with homicidal intent. Must learn to Lean In….Bad Feminist!) Naturally, because of the name changes, I have found it impossible to trace the background to those offences. I can’t shed any light on the womanly way in which the crime was committed. I am actually not clear whether tracing this history is even possible if a GRC holder does not reveal past identities. It might even be an offence for me to try!

Warning! Tone Switch..

Having justifiable concerns about the impact of these decisions, on women, does not necessitate abandoning my humanity. The clip below paints a sad picture of the claimant. Nobody deserves to be vulnerable to sexual assault and I do wonder whether anyone is joining the dots between maladaptive coping mechanisms and prisoners undergoing transition. However I would also love to hear from the trans-widows in this case. Those women are the really brave and stunning ones in all of these tales. They may tell a very different tale.

The first application to the Gender Recognition panel appears to have commenced from within prison. The medical evidence submitted is from Dr James Barrett, a regular expert witness in these cases. He is generally very sympathetic to Transgender Appellant’s. His statement and comments are worth quoting in full. The history presented by the appellant is disputed and a concern focus on transition may be misdirected. A long history of psychiatric problems is noted. When even Dr Barrett thinks its a bad idea….its probably a bad idea!

The prisoner is released in March 2015 and finds a new doctor. Unfortunately the release didn’t last long and they were recalled to prison in less than 3 months, Here a new doctor appears on the scene. Dr Helen Webberley. Interestingly the panel note that they had not previously heard of Dr Webberley, in this field, which shows how recently they d£cid£d to ~~cash in~~…oops I mean support such a vulnerable community:

The relationship with Webberley doesnt seem to persist and another doctor appears. The next Doctor issues a report which is submitted, in redacted form, the the Gender Recognition Panel. This doctor again refers to Ms Jay’s personality disorder and maladaptive coping mechanisms but does diagnose Gender Dysphoria. The diagnosis leads to the recommended treatment (gender reassignment) to resolve the psychiatric issues. Nobody asks whether craving Gender Reassignment is another maladaptive coping mechanism. That would be transphobic, just in case any of you are thinking that now! Gender Dysphoria has been rebranded as an “identity” not a mental health issue, it’s now a slur to suggest this. As an aside this expert also recommends consideration is given to moving the prisoner to the female prison estate. In March 2016 the application for a GRC was turned down. The doctor disappears from the case.

The prisoner is once again released in May 2016. Within 3 months he has found another doctor who provides this evidence ↓ Pay attention to the dates and the extensive treatment the patient has, we are told, undertaken in three short months. ( As an aside Dr Pasterski appears in other cases I cover & most notably opposed a Local Education Authority when it raised concerns about 3 unrelated “trans kids” in a foster family).

At this point the claimant becomes frustrated with the panel who have requested more clarification. The claim “I have always been female” would seem to write three wives and 7 children out of history! In August 2017 the Gender Recognition Panel again turned down the application. They expressed doubt about the credibility of the supporting evidence and , in particular that of Dr Pasteracki. They cast doubt on evidence supplied by the claimant.

3633A2A3-83DE-4B91-B111-3D288A48F961 — ***Inconsistent, unclear, vague, evasive. Nothing to see here***

Some awareness of the condition of Autogynephilia, in the Transexual Community would help the Judge here. Those who fit the profile for autogynephilia have a condition rooted in shame. Sufferers tend to be steeped in denial. Here is a quote from a Gender Identity Specialist:

1334EE62-7FB8-4A16-98ED-FA1DB0C6154D — The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey.

We have seen this in an earlier case I covered GRC from Prison. In that case a male claimed to be homosexual, his attempted rape was minimised on that basis. Yet, since leaving prison, they now self-identify as a lesbian.

Back to this case. In November 2017 the prisoner was again recalled to prison. The judge noted that the claimant was still in prison at the time of the hearing.

Thereafter yet another doctor enters the fray! As the claimant is detained at her Majesty’s pleasure it is not clear how any assessments were carried out. This one is in Sheffield. Can’t change the opinion so change the Doctor!

Now we get to the aim of the court case. It turns out they there is provision for a GRC to be issued by this one judge who can bypass the Gender Recognition Panel. The advocate for the claimant also shares this interesting nugget about GRC applications. Less than 5% are refused its designed to be “permissive not restrictive”. You have to admire the fancy footwork of the Legal team. Ms McCann that the prisoner met the legal standard and that this Judge had the authority to award the Gender Recognition Certificate himself. Is it possible that some Judges are a tad vain and like to set precedents? Does the advocate absolutely know this fact about male vanity? [Strike that: Snarky opinion! My bad]

Ms McCann reminds of that many of these decisions emanate from the European Court of Human Rights. (If we Brexit do we lose Sexit? Sobering thought for a remainer such as myself!)

The right to self-determination includes “gender identification”. Laywoman opinion: Your right to self-determination is not absolute. If it denies me the personal autonomy to recognise and relate to someone as the sex they are!

To demand that I accede to your self-identity which may contradict my sex recognition skills springs from a totalitarian impulse. Chances are I will see your sex and if you walk behind me, late at night, I will react accordingly.

Furthermore can a person be “master” of his “ethnicity” as per the extract below? If I am objectively black can I identify out of racism? As a woman can I identify out of sexism?

To cut a long story short the Judge was persuaded by these arguments. He recognises that he is sitting alone, without assistance from a medical member of the panel but, in a Brave and Stunning decision, he decides to confer a Gender Recognition Certificate on Ms Jay, assuming that is still her name.

For those of you following this discussion just a reminder not to mention the elephant’s trunk in the room. That would just be rude.

I will leave you with this question. In making these determinations the Judge has to have regard to the individual’s Human Rights but also the wider rights of the Community. Are we well served?

HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?

Featured

Biological Males in the Female Prison Estate.

It came as a shock to find that pre-operative “transgender” males were being housed in the female prison estate. Given the jaw dropping idiocy of the policy I assumed, wrongly, this was a recent phenomenon, a temporary loss of State Sanity. I was wrong. While high profile cases, which resulted in sexual assaults on female inmates, (see Karen White and Paris Green ), have only just penetrated the public consciousness, it is not a recent aberration. It is policy. This has been going on since at least 2009! Because of legal cases like this one 👇

Transgender move to women’s prison.

The claimant, in the above case, was a pre-operative, transgender male who had been convicted of manslaughter and imprisoned. 5 days after his release he committed an attempted rape. Following this offence he was returned to prison and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The prisoner had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in 2006. Thus, only two years after the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)had been passed, a bodily intact, biological male, who would go on to commit attempted rape, was recognised as a “woman” for all purposes. Because of this legislation the prisoner was allowed to mount a legal challenge to his incarceration, in the male estate. Let that sink in. 👇

[As an aside the wording of the above reports the historic offence as “committed whilst a man”. This strongly suggests that, at the very least, post GRC offenses are recorded as committed by a female. Work is still on-going to find out the exact legal record keeping when someone “self-identifies” as female. More on this here Crime statistics:Sex v Gender]

Update September 2019: Going by the details provided in this case it seems likely that this is the same person invited to speak to the House of Lords on how we can better serve Transgender prisoners Sex Offender Advisor to the House of Lords

Details of the offence are below. Note that this offence was committed whilst staying in a female bail hostel.

Our law makers have re-defined woman and granted legal rights, as women, to males. This is an issue regardless of an individual’s criminal history. However, in this case, a GRC has been granted to a fully intact male who went on to attempt to rape a woman and still retained his GRC! This law (in practice) legally compels women to admit male bodied individuals into sex segregated spaces. The is a measure of how much contempt the legal systems has for women’s rights. Our right to privacy, dignity and safety has been stripped from us, by a male centred legislature. We have, by stealth, had our right to congregate, as a sex, and enjoy the company of other women, free from male interference, removed by a state sanctioned lie. Refugees from masculinity exist but women should not be legally compelled, or emotionally blackmailed, into running the refugee camps.

Below is a reference to the Gender Recognition Act from this court case. This is a lie. It is impossible to change sex. Women were assured this was only a “kind” “legal fiction”. Yet judgements are being handed down which show the State is treating it as a literal truth! This gives the lie to the, oft repeated, assertion that the GRA has no impact on the protected characteristic of sex (Equality Act 2010). The GRA collapses the female sex class into a male’s subjective sense of self-identity.

Men see only the societally imposed notion of what it means to be a women. They now take the objectified version of “womanhood” for women’s lived experience and reflect this stereotypical version of ourselves back at us.

See David Thomas, becoming a woman. David has a “previous” life as a Men’s Rights Activist and is the author of these two books:

The first book is a rebuttal of feminist charges against men focusing on sexual harassment, child abuse and domestic violence endured, by men, at the hands of women. In Girl the main protagonist is a man who is mistakenly given gender reassignment surgery. This is a staple of some fetish porn known as “forced feminisation”. An MRA and a Porn devotee. Welcome to the Sisterhood David!

Back to the case….

The Legal muddle this has created is even pointed out by the prisoner:The fact “trans-men” can select to remain in the female estate, and they do, tells its own tale. Sex Matters, it seems, when the State decides it does. Here is a discussion between Transmen on prison location. Male Pronouns yes. Male Prison? Hell no! Transmen discuss prison

State capture, by Transgender Ideology, inevitably involves the regressive endorsement of sex stereotypes. Below is a description of how this, legal, woman is enabled to live in the male estate. A case is made that the prison has been accommodating by allowing access to cosmetics, blouses and skirts. The Prisoner, we are told, “lives as a woman” . This is demonstrated by the inevitable links to the most regressive sex stereotypes which feminists have been deconstructing for centuries. Make-up doth not maketh the woman!

A wise woman on twitter (@HairyLeggedHarpy) interrogated a more reasoned, commentator on what he means by “living as a woman”. Ask to define it he listed sex stereotypical behaviours associated with a female role. Pressed to confirm whether he would say “living as a Black or Indigenous Man” he didn’t answer. So why is it OK to say “Living as a woman”? Do the cultural expectations of “being a woman” confer some sort of Lady Essence on women, which gender non-conforming men share?

Does anyone pay any credence to Rachel Dolezal’s claim to live as “black”? No. In a delicious irony, completely lost on MB, this was not Monroe Bergdorf’s favourite Netflix recommendation.

TransRacial Identity was roundly rejected but pay attention. This is the blurb for a course on Trans Racial Identity at Rhode Island University. “We will use the discourse of Transgenderism to build an alternate vocabulary of race”. Feeling a bit too weighed down with your white, male, privilege? Here’s a handy way to garner oppression points! If anyone can “identify” into a marginalised group any laws or policies enacted to protect or empower them, are rendered meaningless. Imagine if Dolezal had preached to black people that they had “cis-black privilege” and were her oppressors?

I digress. (Homage to Ronnie Corbett!) Back to the case in hand.

Below is a list of the reasons the prisoner was not felt to be a suitable candidate for parole. To release him into society presented “a risk to life and limb” but to incarcerate with vulnerable women was OK?

Below a recognition of the “risk” is cast aside because the claimant has a clinical need to associate with women for therapeutic reasons. So the women are to be validation aids for a male, with a history of sexual assault against women. Who asked women if we thought we were “peers”? Women should have had equal representation in these court cases but because of the insistence the GRA has no impact on women’s rights these wrong decisions are consistently made.

The nature of the risk to women is imperfectly understood by the participants in this legal farce. Here is what, in their view, constitutes mitigation for the rape attempt. Don’t worry it wasn’t that type of rape. The motivation was less sexual and more frustration and jealousy!

Witness the absolute rage of *some* Transactivists, when facts threaten their validation as female. Women cannot help being born female. Our very existence is a direct affront to those who aspire to be women. Where “passing privilege” is that rarest of things a threat to a “female” identity will always be embodied in the woman who merely exists. This is a different kind of misogyny. 👇

Dr Ann Lawrence, a transsexual and self-proclaimed autogynophile, on this topic. This paper on narcissistic rage is worth perusing to gauge the potential risk, to women, from AGP transsexuals. AGP, Shame & Narcissistic rage.

This clip from the claimant is very striking for the insistence that nobody can take away their “female” identity.

Because it is literally not possible to change sex many , older, transsexuals report significant counselling to reconcile themselves to this fact. Without this counselling in an era of “Transwomen are women” how much harder to face the truth on the occasions, when it is brought to your attention? Women are literally the emodiment of the denial that TWAW. Here is a clip from Dr Lawrence’s paper on the increased risk of narcissistic disorders in AGP males.

Despite the obvious risk to the female population it seems pretty clear that it is not the practice to actually *tell* the women that amongst their number is a male-bodied, attempted rapist, with a potential, predisposition to narcissistic rage. Another clip from the legal judgement 👇

At least one of the expert witnesses spelt out clearly the claimant’s own narcissism fuelled rage. Controlling, Aggressive, violent and sadistic. Does that sound like a risk to which women ought to be alerted. Is this compatible with “Living as a woman”?

Up next is Gender Identity Specialist, Dr James Barrett. Here we have a belated recognition that the women may have opinions about co-habiting with a male-bodied, attempted rapist. Predictably this is what he has to say about those uppity Prison women. They would be the “sort of women who enjoy conflict“. Women asserting boundaries is always badged aggression by those who wish to deny them.

So there you have it. A prisoner deemed to be too high risk for release, who had attempted rape, and was still equipped to do so, placed in a female prison. Female prisoners are disproportionately victims of male violence and sexual abuse. They are predominantly working class and have no social capital or voice. The silence of female MPs on this topic seeks volumes. Maybe, like, Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat MP) they will need to cultivate a talent for seeing into male souls to minimise the risk.

Are you angry enough yet?

Category: Gender Recognition Certificates

Gender Recognition Certificates and De-transition.

Like this:

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Like this:

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

Like this:

Gender Recognition Certificates

Warning! Tone Switch..

Like this:

HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?

Biological Males in the Female Prison Estate.

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

Share this:

Like this:

Warning! Tone Switch..

Share this:

Like this:

Biological Males in the Female Prison Estate.

Share this:

Like this: